Abstract

6Contemporary science and culture show more and more extended and meaningful signs about the increasing explaining power of evolutionary paradigm. This power overcomes the field of the history of living species. We consider “On the Origin of Species” of 1859 by Charles Darwin as the establishment of this paradigm, but this original and fruitful idea has received the several and different contributions from near and (seemingly) far scientific fields. This process happened according distinguishable waves and leaded the evolutionary theory very far from its starting point, making it something wider and different. The current knowledge of this theory involves many kinds of scholars: biologists, zoologists, botanists, development biologists, genetics/genomics scholars and also scholars of many other disciplines, as statistics, mathematics, ecology, environmental sciences, physics, chemistry, linguistics, sociology, neuro-sciences, epidemiology, informatics, immunology. During the end of XX Century, the study of complexity, of self-organization and of emerging properties has been a decisive factor to extend evolution until beyond the boundaries of Biology. These phenomena, or properties, or features, that are shown by “living” and “not-living” systems (so called basing ourselves on traditional definitions), have deeply modified even the “properly” biologic evolution itself and besides this has demonstrated that, mutatis mutandis, evolutionary processes or phenomena happen also out of biologic dominion, referring “biologic” to “wet-ware world”. This is to say the class of evolutionary phenomena is more widely and more inclusively extended than our opinion. We can mean this as a revolution (according to Kuhn’s definition) that imposes us to restructure the definition of evolution itself and even to redraw the boundaries and the map of Biology itself. Aiming to establish a name of this field of study we propose “PanEvolutionary Theory” (PanEvo Theory). No doubt Prigogine offered an important contribution to this area. The thinking and the work of Enzo Tiezzi can be placed seen in the same perspective. Disregarding direct connections and contacts with the Nobel Prize Prigogine, however the studies of Enzo Tiezzi are neither a fully unexpected work nor a theory lacking of important potentialities: it is not a strange or eccentric academic exercise. Except the close contact and the dense exchanges with Prigogine, we collocate Enzo Tiezzi in the same context of Gregory Chaitin, of Rachel Carson, of John Harte and Robert H. Socolow, of James Paul Wesley, of Sertorio, of Oort and Peixoto, just to cite the most strictly related. Our Academy had the privilege and the honor of having Enzo Tiezzi in its ranks. We think that merits and developments of the thinking of this scholar have to produce important and lasting fruits in the future.